Facts are funny things, especially in the age of laissez faire. Nowadays the truth is just a dollar away.

Unless you've verified the truth with your own senses, you are, essentially, taking someone elses word as truth. We call that "faith". Something the learned used to hold in disdain, now an unfortunate reality of copy/paste scholastics paid for by whichever lobby wants the truth meme'd across the web-cosmos. Illustrated here in plenty by people who have never seen a wolf in the wild, will likely never see a wolf, and really have no "dog" in this fight (pardon the poor pun). Thus is born hyperbole. With only a tiny leash in the consequences and truth of the situation, we hold a sort of "intellectual speculation", that does to knowledge exactly what speculating does to commodities. Nothing like inflating the truth simply for a little mental masturbation.

It's that reason I find motive's far more compelling than "facts". Which is why in this case, it's easy to see valid points in both sides of the argument, once you dispense of the exaggeration resulting from the tard olympics.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not :hmmm:. However, what you say can be true at times, probably more than we all wish to admit.

That being said, I use to stand firmly on the side for wolf introduction. After hearing reports and seeing them with my own eyes, I like to think I stand in the middle somewhere on this one. I don't want them annihilated like some, just managed - that's all. Like I said before many times, if left unchecked they will continue to cause problems.

Dick,
Let me help you understand that subspecies are important and have their own range and significance, as it appears you are having a little trouble understanding this… kinda like the USFS. Let us compare it to something you are familiar with… Trout, Oncorhynchus.

Click to expand...

Tallguy,

I understand the distinction between species and subspecies. I also understand that the endangered species act has, on occasion, placed a weight on infraspecific ranks that cause taxonomists to cringe. That's why having real data about genetic relatedness is so valuable. TomB's reply offers a good explanation for why this is so.

You might disagree that reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone and Idaho was the right thing to do, but I don't think you should try to argue that the wrong source population was used for that introduction.

I think it is worth noting that there was a substantial opposition to wolf reintroduction from within the environmental community, because there was a credible argument that wolves already were reintroducing themselves into Montana and Idaho. Sightings as far south as Yellowstone were known before the introduction program began, although there was disagreement over whether the occasional lone wolf ranging that far would result in natural re-establishment. If that argument had held sway, the wolves that eventually would have established in the northern US Rockies would have come from the same source populations in Alberta and BC, and would have had greater federal protection than the 'experimental,' 'non-essential' wolves that derived from the USFWS reintroduction.

I don't think there is significant portion of professional wildlife biologists who think the USFWS "screwed up" in this reintroduction. Quite the opposite, it has been viewed as a tremendous success, with a lot learned about the dynamics of a keystone predator in natural ecosystems, and evidence that ecosystems are returning to a more natural state in ways far beyond the balance of wolf and elk populations. For example, evidence from Yellowstone has shown that the reintroduction of wolves has increased raptor populations (by reducing coyote populations, which had grown in the absence of wolves, thereby increasing small mammals that hawks and eagles prey on), and improving fish habitat (by forcing elk and moose to spend less time in the willow thickets lining streams, in order to keep sight lines open to watch for wolves, thereby permitting damaged riparian habitat to recover). Since this is a fly-fishing forum, we should all be happy about that!

I don't believe it. This smells of fabrication. I'll change my mind only if a reputable and truly neutral third party (press report, WDFW, etc.) corroborates the story.

Click to expand...

WDFW, or any government agency, is never truly neutral. In fact, "true," in any form of the word, should never be associated with a government agency. This is nothing against Lugan, the poster, but rather the false authority the Fish and Wildlife Services have engendered themselves with and the detrimentally fallacious trust they have gained from our western states. I grew up in an area where wolf predation has become a reality and the ODFW is denying their impact at least half the time.
They are great animals, intelligent, lithe, top of the food chain, on and on, but they do not have a harmonious place in the Pac NW. I've seen this picture many times on Facebook in different contexts, so I'm with Lugan, I'm not sure about its validity. However, don't take Fish and Wildlife's word as the final word for what's happening with wolves.

Will you please name one or more special interest group that provides money to the USFWS for their press releases or any part of the wolf program? I'm a bit skeptical because I didn't know USFWS gets funding from any source other than the US federal government, or transfers from other federal agencies.

Will you please name one or more special interest group that provides money to the USFWS for their press releases or any part of the wolf program? I'm a bit skeptical because I didn't know USFWS gets funding from any source other than the US federal government, or transfers from other federal agencies.

Two weeks ago I crossed the fresh tracks of a good sized wolf in the snow while elk hunting in Montana. I never saw the beast and of course was not stalked or attacked. My brother mentioned that in 2010 a group of hunters claimed to have been stalked by a group of 5 wolves in the same area, but the story was apparently controversial. I also saw black bear, mountain lion, and bobcat tracks (again no attacks). During week long hunt my main concern was not injuring myself slipping on ice/snow. Animal attack the last thing on my mind. I would have been concerned had I been hunting in an area frequented by grizzly bears as they are extremely dangerous when defending a kill site.

Richar Olmstead makes some very good points about why wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone: to restore plant and animal ecology in river and stream zones that had been damaged for decades by elk overgrazing. Visitors to Slough Creek and the Lamar Valley can already see the difference wolves have made, with return of small cottonwood trees and other important riparian vegetation. I'm skeptical about wolf reintroduction to places like Rocky Mountain National Park and the Olympic Penninsula though, because the human population/development in these areas is greater and the physical space smaller for wolf packs to spread.

Two weeks ago I crossed the fresh tracks of a good sized wolf in the snow while elk hunting in Montana. I never saw the beast and of course was not stalked or attacked. My brother mentioned that in 2010 a group of hunters claimed to have been stalked by a group of 5 wolves in the same area, but the story was apparently controversial. I also saw black bear, mountain lion, and bobcat tracks (again no attacks). During week long hunt my main concern was not injuring myself slipping on ice/snow. Animal attack the last thing on my mind. I would have been concerned had I been hunting in an area frequented by grizzly bears as they are extremely dangerous when defending a kill site.

Richar Olmstead makes some very good points about why wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone: to restore plant and animal ecology in river and stream zones that had been damaged for decades by elk overgrazing. Visitors to Slough Creek and the Lamar Valley can already see the difference wolves have made, with return of small cottonwood trees and other important riparian vegetation. I'm skeptical about wolf reintroduction to places like Rocky Mountain National Park and the Olympic Penninsula though, because the human population/development in these areas is greater and the physical space smaller for wolf packs to spread.

Click to expand...

I would have to strongly disagree with you on the fact that elk overgraze/damage stream zones. I have hunted elk all my life in Idaho and some in WA, and have never seen any damage done by elk to streams etc other than possibly making wallows (sp?). I have seen much worse done/bad damage done by free range cattle and ranchers letting their cattle roam.